I would like to thank Roger Jankiewicz, who is from Hanmer in my riding, for these petitions.

“Enact Anti-Scab Labour Law....

“Whereas strikes and lockouts are rare: on average, 97% of collective agreements are negotiated without work disruption; and

“Whereas anti-replacement workers laws have existed in Quebec since 1978, in British Columbia since 1993, and in Ontario under the NDP government, it was repealed by the Harris Conservative government;

“Whereas anti-scab legislation has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

“Whereas the use of scab labour during a strike or lockout is damaging to the social fabric of a community in the short and long term, as well as, the well-being of its residents;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“To pass the anti-scab labour bill to ban the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my name to it and send it to the Clerk with my good page Leo.

“Saving Organs to Save Lives....

“Whereas there are currently 1,600 people waiting for a life-saving organ transplant in Ontario;

“Whereas every three days someone in Ontario dies because they can’t get a transplant” they need “in time;

“Whereas donating organs and tissues can save up to eight lives and improve the lives of up to 75 people;

“Whereas 90% of Ontarians support organ donation, but only 36% of us are registered;

“Whereas Nova Scotia has seen” an increase “in organs and tissue for transplant after implementing a presumed consent legislation” back “in January 2020;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“Change the legislation to allow a donor system based on presumed consent as set out in MPP Gélinas’s bill, Peter Kormos Memorial Act (Saving Organs to Save Lives).”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask my very patient page Leo to bring it to the Clerk.

“Occupational Exposure Limits for Diesel Emissions Underground....

“Whereas the current Ontario occupational exposure limits (OEL) for diesel ... exhaust, 400 ... total carbon, is unsafe for underground workers;

“Whereas the best current scientific evidence as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH), CAREX Canada and the Occupational Cancer Research Centre (OCRC) all recommend an OEL based on elemental carbon of 20 ...

“Whereas the proposed OEL of 120 ... elemental carbon poses an unacceptable risk for lung cancer to our highest exposed workers in the province which are underground miners;

“Whereas proposed industry limits will result in hundreds of lost lives, undue harm in our communities and incalculable financial loss due to our health care and WSIB ... ”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: “to lower the occupational exposure limit for diesel emissions to a safe limit of 20 ... for all underground workers in Ontario.”

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask my good page Mustafa to bring it to the Clerk.

« Protéger les jeunes du vapotage ...

« Alors qu’on en sait très peu sur les effets à long terme du vapotage sur les jeunes; et

« Alors que la commercialisation agressive des produits de vapotage par l’industrie du tabac, fait en sorte que de plus en plus de jeunes deviennent dépendants de la nicotine par l’utilisation de cigarettes électroniques; et

« Alors que les leçons importantes apprises sur les effets du tabagisme sur la santé ne doivent pas être répétées avec le vapotage et le principe de précaution doit être appliqué pour protéger les jeunes contre le vapotage; et

« Alors que plusieurs agences de la santé et les Médecins pour un Canada sans fumée appuient pleinement les propositions concrètes visant à réduire le vapotage chez les jeunes incluses dans » mon projet de loi;

Ils et elles demandent à l’Assemblée législative « de demander au gouvernement Ford d’adopter immédiatement le projet de loi » 151, « le vapotage n’est pas pour les jeunes, afin de protéger la santé des jeunes de l’Ontario. »

J’appuie cette pétition, monsieur le Président. Je vais la signer et je demande à mon page Mustafa de l’amener à la table des greffiers.

“Let’s Fix the Northern Health Travel Grant ...

“Whereas people in the north are not getting the same access to health care because of the high cost of travel and accommodations;

“Whereas by refusing to raise the Northern Health Travel Grant (NHTG) rates, the Ford government is putting a massive burden on northern Ontarians who are sick;

“Whereas gas prices cost more in northern Ontario;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: “to establish a committee with a mandate to fix and improve the NHTG;

“This NHTG advisory committee would bring together health care providers in the north, as well as recipients of the NHTG to make recommendations to the Minister of Health that would improve access to health care in northern Ontario through adequate reimbursement of travel costs.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask my very patient page Mustafa to bring it to the Clerk.

“MS Specialized Clinic in Sudbury....

“Whereas northeastern Ontario has one of the highest rates of multiple sclerosis (MS) in Ontario;

“Whereas specialized MS clinics provide essential health care services to those living with multiple sclerosis, their caregiver and their family;

“Whereas the city of Greater Sudbury is recognized as a hub for health care in northeastern Ontario;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Immediately set up a specialized MS clinic in the Sudbury area that is staffed by a neurologist who specializes in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, a physiotherapist and a social worker at a minimum.”

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask my good page Scarlett to bring it to the Clerk.

I have a petition entitled “Improve Winter Road Maintenance on Northern Highways.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Highways 11 and 17 play a critical role in the development and prosperity of northern Ontario;

“Whereas the former Liberal government introduced private winter maintenance contracts, and the current Conservative government has failed to improve winter road conditions in northern Ontario;

“Whereas injuries and fatalities are twice more likely to occur on a northern highway than on a highway in southern Ontario, per capita;

“Whereas current Ministry of Transportation classification for winter highway maintenance negatively impacts the safety of drivers on northern highways;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“Classify all 400-series highways, the QEW highway and Highways 11 and 17 as class 1 highways;

“Require that the pavement in class 1 highways be bare of snow within eight hours of the end of a snowfall.”

I fully support this petition and will sign and give it to Peter to bring to the Clerks’ table.

I thank the member for this question and for the evolving discussion we’ve had on this topic. It’s important that we recognize that over the past couple of weeks some of those cost drivers, the carbon tax etc.—but having lived in the isolated communities there’s no question that food is very expensive, Mr. Speaker. That doesn’t just go to the cost of the food; it goes to the nutritional standards for the people living in those communities.

The short answer is, absolutely. Food security is ready to move forward. The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund is already supporting communities like Eabametoong First Nation. Neskantaga and Marten Falls have called for this. We have new partnerships with the University of Guelph and a great discussion with the Minister of Agriculture about how we can put these pieces together, provide the capacity to build community gardens, micro-farming and other kinds of techniques—vertical growing—so that that kind of nutritional food can be built potentially year-round in those isolated communities.

I mean, we have reduced the fuel surcharge on planes flying into the isolated communities. Of course, we continue to strenuously oppose the carbon tax, which is going to continue to drive up the cost of gas. I’m not sure what the member’s opinion is, Mr. Speaker, but I can guarantee him that we will continue to focus on reducing costs for isolated and remote communities.

Turning back to food security for a moment, Mr. Speaker: Next week I’ll be attending a conference and an MOU signing with Kiikenomaga Kikenjigewen Employment and Training Services, the Mushkegowuk tribal council, the Sioux Lookout area management board, Keewaytinook Okimakanak and the Island Lake communities from Manitoba, who will converge to sign a memorandum of understanding to consolidate their food-purchasing power and to explore options to grow food in their own communities. I’m going to be there, Mr. Speaker, because this is important for nutrition and affordability for isolated communities.

Minister of Northern Development and Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1137 to 1142.

On December 4, 2023, Mr. McCarthy moved government notice of motion number 20.

Mr. McCarthy then moved that the motion be amended by adding “and that, in the case of any division related to any proceedings on the bills, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes” at the end of the motion.

Mr. Vanthof then moved that the amendment be amended by replacing the words “five minutes” with “one hour.”

All those in favour of Mr. Vanthof’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

All those opposed to Mr. Vanthof’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Pursuant to standing order 50, I’m now required to put the question on the amendment to government notice of motion number 20.

Mr. McCarthy moved that the motion be amended by adding, “and that, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bills, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes” at the end of the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. McCarthy’s amendment to the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour of Mr. McCarthy’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to Mr. McCarthy’s amendment will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is another five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1147 to 1148.

All those in favour of the amendment will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Pursuant to standing order 50, I am now required to put the question on government notice of motion number 20, as amended, relating to the allocation of time on Bill 136, Bill 150 and Bill 154.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion, as amended, carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour of the motion, as amended, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion, as amended, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is another five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1152 to 1153.

All those in favour of the motion, as amended, will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

The House recessed from 1156 to 1500.

Start the clock.

To the Premier: The cost of living in the north is very high. A 2016 report stated that First Nations families in northern Ontario spend more than half of their income on groceries to meet basic nutritional requirements.

Speaker, last summer I visited Keewaywin First Nation, and I met April McKay, who has a community garden that provides fresh produce to Keewaywin. Is there any way that this government can help other people across the north like April who want to create community gardens and improve food security?

What is this government doing for the people in the north who need affordable gas for sustenance—hunting and fishing?

I’d like to introduce a few people from my riding: Heather Kelley from Fort Erie; Lisa Bowen from St. Catharines, who is in Jennie’s riding; and Sue Hotte from Niagara. They’re from the Niagara Health Coalition. I’d also like to welcome everybody from the health coalition who has come from across the province of Ontario.

On behalf of my colleagues, I want to encourage all parliamentarians to join us for the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the award-winning Tour for Humanity bus by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies. The bus is here at Queen’s Park. There’s a reception during lunch between 12 and 1. You are encouraged to join us in room 228 as we celebrate the launch of Holocaust education in Ontario.

The ayes are 0; the nays are 100.

Thank you, Speaker. It’s great to be here. Please know that I’ll be sharing my time today with the parliamentary assistant to municipal affairs and housing.

As the minister has in the past informed us and has outlined, our proposed Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act resets decisions made by the government at the end of 2022 by proposing to restore all of the properties that were redesignated or removed from the greenbelt. It protects those lands, and in doing so, redefines how changes to the greenbelt boundaries can be made in the future—through legislation instead of regulation.

It’s clear that while our government remains committed to tackling Ontario’s housing supply crisis, we have to do it in a way that maintains and reinforces public trust and is sensitive to the concerns of communities across this province. Achieving this demands a multi-faceted approach, which is why, in addition to the proposed bill before the House today, you will hear and have heard us speak in support of Bill 150, the proposed Planning Statute Law Amendment Act.

That proposed legislation, if passed, would reverse provincial changes made to municipal official plans, except where these changes are needed to align with legislation or regulations. This includes winding back changes to urban boundaries while maintaining protections for the greenbelt.

We are seeking municipal feedback on potential changes in addition to those already included in Bill 150 and made by the province that affected municipalities would like to see maintained. That proposed legislation provides us with an opportunity to reset our relationship with our municipal partners. It recognizes that municipalities are in the best position to understand the unique needs and concerns of their communities.

While we are certainly interested in hearing from the municipalities on provincial changes they’d like to see kept, our government has proposed to maintain a handful of provincial changes under this legislation. These are changes that directly support provincial priorities. For example, changes related to the greenbelt are among those we are proposing to maintain. Similarly, we are also proposing that provincial-official-plan modifications be kept to protect the Niagara Escarpment Plan area from incompatible uses. The Niagara Escarpment, just like the Oak Ridges moraine and the protected countryside, forms an important part of the greenbelt area. So you see, Speaker, two pieces of legislation before this House are reinforcing greenbelt protections while reinforcing public trust in our land use planning processes.

Speaker, in resetting our relationship with our municipal partners, these pieces of legislation are recognizing that we all share the same fundamental goals: to confront Ontario’s housing crisis; to create sustainable, livable communities; and to do this by working together as partners in a manner that maintains and reinforces the public trust. An indication of the buy-in we have received is that almost all of our 50 largest and fastest-growing municipalities have committed in writing to their provincially assigned housing targets. In turn, the province has given the mayors of 46 Ontario municipalities strong-mayor powers as another tool to help get shovels in the ground faster.

I continue to encourage all municipalities to commit to their provincially assigned housing targets. We want Ontario to be a place where everyone—including newcomers, young families and seniors—can afford to call somewhere in Ontario home.

We’ve also heard loud and clear from communities that our main focus should be on building housing on land that is already within urban boundaries. This is land that can typically be developed faster because of proximity to existing or planned infrastructure—the roads, utilities and community services. So we are working with our municipal partners to unleash housing potential within their boundaries. At the same time, we have doubled down on infrastructure projects that support these many initiatives.

Speaker, as I said earlier, our intent with this proposed legislation and with the proposed Planning Statute Law Amendment Act is to write a new chapter on land use planning in Ontario. Our commitment to effective, transparent and community-focused land use planning complements other key goals of our government—that is, building at least 1.5 million homes by 2031. To some, these two objectives might seem at odds with one another, but our government is nimble, innovative and capable of balancing growth with sustainability and protections with prosperity.

Speaker, I’d like to talk about some of the ways we are working with our partners to build more homes faster. Since we took office, our government has introduced four housing supply action plans to ensure that economic and population growth are paired with rapid growth in housing. These plans address the full continuum of housing. This includes affordable, community, market and rental, high-rise, low-rise, long-term care—the full range to meet the needs of Ontarians. The plan put forward is a comprehensive range of actions to get shovels in the ground faster. We’re reducing red tape that slows construction and pushes home prices even higher. We are making development costs more predictable and reducing municipal fees and charges on priority types of housing. We’re permitting more gentle density as of right—in other words, without the need to apply for rezoning to allow for additional residential units. We’re promoting building up and around transit. And we’re encouraging thinking outside the box on ways to build more homes; for example, laneway houses and modular construction.

Just last week, we convened more than 75 organizations, including municipal partners, as part of Ontario’s first-ever annual housing forum. Together, we discussed how we can continue to get more shovels in the ground sooner and build more homes faster. The insights gathered at the forum will help inform our next housing supply action plan next year. The forum focused on four main themes or four pillars. The first was building housing-enabling infrastructure: the roads, the utilities and the amenities essential for new development. Next, we discussed barriers to the missing middle—thinking of this as this gap in housing options that exists between single, detached homes and high-rise buildings. A further topic was ensuring housing meets the needs of all Ontarians—what we build, how we build, and where we build. And finally, we looked at ways to leverage innovations like modular housing.

It really was a great convention, a great gathering. I called it a cross-pollination of ideas. With all stakeholders together, we got some great insights that, again, are going to provide scale and are going to provide speed to our next housing supply action plan. This type of pragmatic, realistic suggestions that people with front-line experience and expertise provided so well is important. This collaborative and solutions-based forum will be invaluable as our government works on its next housing supply action plan, delivering more homes, built faster, throughout Ontario.

As I mentioned earlier, municipalities are critical partners for our government as we help communities get shovels in the ground faster and work to build more homes.

This past August, we launched the Building Faster Fund to reward municipalities that build homes. This is a three-year, $1.2-billion program to provide funding to municipalities, and it’s based on their performance against assigned municipal housing targets. The Building Faster Fund can be used to help pay for the infrastructure that supports housing development—because you can’t have housing without the infrastructure to support it. We’re talking here about infrastructure like roads, water, waste water, and related costs to support community growth. While, in total, there are 50 municipalities with housing targets, I should also add that the program reserves some of the funding for small, rural and northern communities that have not yet been assigned a housing target. The fund has $400 million to distribute each year for the next three years, obviously totalling $1.2 billion, and the allocation to each eligible municipality’s portion of the $400 million will be determined by their share of the overall provincial housing supply goal. A municipality’s performance will be evaluated by how close they come to their assigned annual target when comparing the number of housing starts and additional residential units they manage to the beginning in a given calendar year. Municipalities can access a portion of their allocation if they achieve 80% or more of their annual target, and those exceeding their target will be eligible to receive additional funding. Municipalities falling short of achieving at least 80% of their annual target will not receive any funding. Funding from this program will begin to flow in 2024-25.

Speaker, you can’t have housing without the roads, water and waste water to support it. In short, housing and infrastructure go hand in hand. That’s why we recently announced our new Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund. This fund will invest a further $200 million over three years to help municipalities repair, rehabilitate and expand their critical drinking water, waste water and stormwater infrastructure. This responds directly to our municipal partners’ needs and wants. They told us they needed more funding options to meet the growing demand for infrastructure in their communities. Municipalities need to be able to service the new homes we need them to build, and they’re strategic partners to get shovels in the ground. This fund will help build stronger, more prosperous communities.

And there’s more, Speaker. In our fall economic statement, we announced the launch of the Ontario Infrastructure Bank. This will enable public sector pension plans, other trusted institutional investors and Indigenous communities to become even more involved in large-scale infrastructure projects right across this province. Through a new arm’s-length, board-governed agency, this plan will work.

I’d like to take this opportunity to repeat our government’s call to the federal government. We’d like them to come and join us on a new federal-provincial infrastructure fund to help us meet our infrastructure needs—so badly needed throughout the province.

Our federal government partners have heeded our call to help people in Ontario needing access to rental housing. We are working closely with them to increase the supply of purpose-built rentals. Ontario is working to remove the full 8% of the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax on qualifying new, purpose-built rental housing. Removing the HST will make it easier and cheaper to build this important type of housing in Ontario, and we’re hoping this measure will help spur more construction of badly needed rental units.

Speaker, this list of innovations and incentives I have discussed are already making a difference in helping us build more homes Ontarians need and deserve. We are proving that governments committed to collaborating with partners and the public can successfully develop and protect land, even in the face of the housing crisis that we have today.

By supporting our proposed Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, the members of this House have the opportunity to help us write a new chapter on land use planning in Ontario—one that resets the boundaries of the greenbelt, that restores all of the properties that were redesignated or removed in 2022, that protects greenbelt lands, that reinvigorates it by keeping the 9,400 acres that were also added, that remakes how changes to its boundaries can be made in the future, that reviews it through a non-partisan lens—I repeat: that reviews it through a non-partisan lens—and that rebalances it with our commitment to build at least 1.5 million homes by 2031 in a way that maintains and reinforces public trust.

I will now turn it over to the parliamentary assistant.

Would the minister care to lead off the debate?

I would like to thank Pauline Pasierowski, who is from Chelmsford in my riding, for this petition:

“Health Care: Not for Sale.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians get health care based on their needs, not their ability to pay;

“Whereas the Ford government wants to privatize our health care system;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals and will download costs to patients;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario “to immediately stop all plans to privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 to help recruit, retain, return and respect health care workers with better pay and better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario;

“—incentivizing health care professionals to choose to live and work in northern Ontario.”

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask page Scarlett to bring it to the Clerk.

« Soutenez le système d’éducation francophone en Ontario ...

« Attendu que les enfants francophones ont un droit constitutionnel à une éducation de haute qualité, financée par les fonds publics, dans leur propre langue;

« Attendu que l’augmentation des inscriptions dans le système d’éducation en langue française signifie que plus de 1 000 nouveaux enseignants et enseignantes de langue française sont nécessaires chaque année pour les cinq prochaines années;

« Attendu que les changements apportés au modèle de financement du gouvernement provincial pour la formation des enseignantes et des enseignants de langue française signifient que l’Ontario n’en forme que 500 par » année;

« Attendu que le nombre de personnes qui enseignent sans certification complète dans le système d’éducation en langue française a augmenté de plus de 450 % au cours » des dernières années

Ils et elles demandent à l’Assemblée législative « de fournir immédiatement le financement demandé par le rapport du groupe de travail sur la pénurie des enseignantes et des enseignants dans le système d’éducation en langue française de l’Ontario et de travailler avec des partenaires pour mettre pleinement en oeuvre les recommandations. »

J’appuie cette pétition, monsieur le Président. Je vais la signer et je demande à Emma de l’amener à la table des greffiers.

“To Raise Social Assistance Rates.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and woefully inadequate to cover the basic costs of food and rent;

“Whereas individuals on the Ontario Works program receive just $733 per month and individuals on the Ontario Disability Support Program receive just $1,169 per month, only 41% and 65% of the poverty line;

“Whereas the Ontario government has not increased social assistance rates since 2018, and Canada’s inflation rate in January” was over “5.1%, the highest rate in 30 years;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized through the CERB program that a ‘basic income’ of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: “to increase social assistance rates to a base of $2,000 per month for those on Ontario Works and to increase other programs accordingly.”

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask my good page Emma to bring it to the Clerk.

“Repeal Bill 124....

“Whereas Bill 124 removes the right of public employees to negotiate fair contracts;

“Whereas Bill 124 limits the wage increase in the broader public sector to a maximum of 1% per year at a time of unprecedented inflation;

“Whereas Ontario’s public servants have dealt with” three “years of unheralded difficulties in performing their duties to our province” through the pandemic;

“Whereas those affected by Bill 124 are the people who teach us, care for us, make our hospitals and health care system work and protect the most vulnerable among us;

“Whereas the current provincial government is showing disrespect to public servants to keep taxes low for some of our country’s most profitable corporations;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“Immediately repeal Bill 124 and show respect for the public sector workers.”

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask my very patient page Emma to bring it to the Clerk.

Mr. Flack, on behalf of Mr. Calandra, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 136, An Act to amend the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and certain other Acts, to enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023, to repeal an Act and to revoke various regulations / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2005 sur la ceinture de verdure et d’autres lois, édictant la Loi de 2023 sur la Réserve agricole de Duffins-Rouge et abrogeant une loi et divers règlements.

Further debate? Further debate?

Before I begin my debate this afternoon, I just wanted to say a few words about my uncle Adam Shaw. He lost the love of his life, his wife, my aunt Marie. She took sick suddenly and passed just over the weekend. We’re all very saddened by this. My uncle is a hale and hearty 90 years old, but he’s taking this very hard.

We are sending out all of our love to you, Uncle Adam. You know that we have your back. We are so sorry for your loss.

To Damien and Lise: Thank you for everything that you’ve done to keep Uncle Adam fed. We appreciate everything that you’ve done for us as our family moves through this tragedy.

Interjections.

We’re here to debate this bill, the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, which is essentially a bill that reverses all of the assaults and the unrequested changes that this government imposed on the province of Ontario when it came to the greenbelt.

What I want to say clearly: We are here today because this is a victory for the people of the province of Ontario. The people of the province of Ontario were mobilized like I have never seen before. People from all communities, all ages, all walks of life saw this as something that they needed to speak up and stand up to. We saw that people understood what this was. They were completely outraged not only because there was this greenbelt grab, essentially stealing what they saw as something that was important to them, something that should be preserved as a legacy for our future generations—these two million acres that protect some of our most endangered species; these lands that prevent our homes from flooding, that clean our drinking water. They understood what was being lost or what was being stolen from them. I would say that it’s not only just that they understood what was lost; they were outraged by the way in which this was done. They know that this greenbelt grab is nothing short of insider dealing, and they know that the Premier, when he promised once, twice, three times and looked directly into the people of Ontario’s face and said, “I won’t touch the greenbelt”—they know that couldn’t have been further from the truth.

Evidence has showed that he was already planning to do this. Documents show that while he was campaigning, he still had the intention to open up the greenbelt.

People in the province of Ontario may be kind and forgiving, but they’re not stupid, and they knew what had happened to them. So this victory is for all of those people.

I’m going to take the time here to mention some of the environmental organizations, grassroots groups that formed over this, that have done the hard work to hold this government to account, to force this government to do what they should have done in the first place, which is listen to the people of Ontario and do the right thing. So many of these groups also came together and worked collaboratively across the province.

If I omit some of you, please write or call my office as you always do, and I will make sure that I get you on the record.

I’m going to start by reading this list. It’s important that they get acknowledged: Environmental Defence, Greenbelt Promise, greenbelt alliance, the Alliance for a Liveable Ontario, National Farmers Union, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Ontario Nature, Suzuki foundation, the Council of Canadians, Ontario wilderness committee, Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition, Wellington Water Watchers, Stop Sprawl Peel, ACORN, Ontario nurses for the environment, and regional groups such as Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition, Stop Sprawl Durham, the biodiversity and climate action group, Prince Edward County Field Naturalists—I’m going to just skip over these. Maybe I’ll go back at the end of my speech and finish the list.

I would also like to say my particular thanks to GASP, which is Grand(m)others Act to Save the Planet. Being a grandmother of seven grandchildren, with one on the way, due December 10, I sympathize and I identify with these grandmothers who are acting for those future generations, which is what we all here, as legislators, should be doing—not thinking about the bottom line, not thinking about the first quarter, not thinking about our insiders, but thinking about the legacy that we will be passing on to future generations.

This also comes in the context of what people are experiencing in this province. As we’ve been hearing, people are struggling in this province. We hear about the increased food bank usage and people struggling to keep a roof over their head. We hear, sadly, stories of seniors who are losing their homes, who are actually resorting to meal programs for the first time in their lives.

Unfortunately, this government is focused not on the people of Ontario, if you ask me, but they’ve been focusing, really, on reversing the damage they’ve done, reversing their bad legislation. They have not really taken the time that we’ve had here, and even in the last week that we have here, to move legislation that will in fact help people in the province.

You have a majority. I’m going to talk a bit about that. I’m going to talk about the fact that we have all these time-allocated bills. There’s no reason for that. Every bill that you put forward will get passed. Instead of using that majority to bring relief to people, what has this government spent the last session doing? You spent the last session introducing legislation that then had to be reversed, and now we are—for example, we’ve spent time discussing new, sweeping powers that you’re giving for pet projects like the Ontario Place luxury spa. These are things the people of the province of Ontario don’t understand—why this is a priority for your government, that that’s what you’re doing.

Rather than a government mired in scandal and focused solely on their insiders, we need a government that acts for people. This government has been in power for five and a half years, and in that time, things have only gotten harder for Ontarians.

Interjection.

I also would like to remind the member from Brantford–Brant that he has had more code zeros in the province than any city in Ontario, despite the fact that we brought it up again in the House.

So I think, again, this is proof positive—this is an example of how this government is not paying attention to the needs of the people, that instead they’re focusing on themselves. Whether it’s housing or groceries or transit, none of this is affordable for people. The government, with their majority, has something to do about it.

We put proposal after proposal forward. We put proposals to close loopholes that let unscrupulous landlords gouge tenants. We put forward actions that would prevent seniors like the 90-year-old woman we had here who was being demovicted from her home—we put in proposals to prevent people from being renovicted or demovicted, and this government said no. We tabled a motion that would invest in non-market and affordable housing options, and the government said no. We proposed a smart solution, an innovative solution to help people reduce the cost of heating and lower emissions, and the government said no.

I also want to say that this is during a time that this government is under an RCMP investigation. I am pretty sure, and it has been said, that this is the only time in the history of Ontario that this has happened. That’s spectacular, given that we had some of the governments that we’ve had previously—the fact that this government rose to that height. You are the only government that is currently under RCMP investigation.

Overachievers.

Oh, yes, overachievers.

I think that it’s really important to note that the RCMP has identified a special prosecutor. The RCMP has launched a criminal investigation into the greenbelt changes made by the Ford government. Of course, the investigation centres around the controversial decision to open up protected greenbelt lands for housing development, which has sparked quite serious scrutiny.

The role of the special prosecutor, which is really shocking when you read it, is connected to the complexity of working with witnesses who may be bound by confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements—and that they are there to deal with issues of security. This is the special prosecutor. This is serious. The fact that this is what the government has wasted time and energy doing, that this is not over, is really something that this government should take to heart and should—instead of continuing to move bills forward that are not focusing on the people of Ontario, that are focusing on themselves in the light of this special prosecutor, the RCMP investigation, and in the light of what we expect will be revealed tomorrow in the Auditor General’s report.

I’m sorry to say, it probably will be a sad day when we see some of the workings around the MZOs in the province that are under investigation and some of the other things that the Auditor General will reveal. Let’s remind ourselves that that’s how we got to this part in the first place. An Auditor General’s investigation revealed clearly that there was preferential treatment of insiders and developers when it came to the Ford government’s use of MZOs and urban boundary amendments and the greenbelt expansion. Then, of course, we had the Integrity Commissioner’s report. Side by side, those two reports paint a very damning picture of this government. The Integrity Commissioner’s report found, in fact, that the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing broke the Integrity Commissioner’s act. The shocking thing is, he broke the Integrity Commissioner act when it came to insider dealing and when it came to conflict of interest. These are serious, serious charges.

Subsequent to that, we, as the official opposition, have attempted to strengthen the laws for us, as legislators, to follow, but also so that we can begin to build faith and trust in the people of the province of Ontario that what happens here, in their House, is acting above board and with the utmost transparency and integrity. So we did put forward a bill, the Strengthening Members’ Integrity Act, which was an act that would have strengthened the bill. In fact, it was the Integrity Commissioner himself who asked for some of these changes, to allow him to be able to do a more thorough investigation.

We put that forward as an opposition day motion. Many of us debated why this would be important—that as people who represent our ridings and represent the province, we should expect to be held to a higher standard; that given the cloud of suspicion that has befallen this House, we would expect that a government would be more than willing and eager to make changes so that they could show good faith and show that their intentions were to never conduct themselves in the disgraceful way that they had up until this point. But the government, again, said no to these changes.

Then, finally, in order to, again, look at the ways in which we govern ourselves—both sides—we put forward a private member’s bill called Cleaning Up Corruption Act, 2023. Because there are glaring and obvious loopholes in our integrity laws, we thought that it was time for the standard for elected officials in our province to be raised; that we needed a system that values the integrity Ontarians expect from the government, and also a system that allows Ontarians to hold their government accountable and prevent cultures of corruption, preferential treatment and backroom dealings from becoming the norm for those who hold public office. This was a good bill. This was a bill that would amend the Auditor General Act. It would also amend the Members’ Integrity Act. Those are the two acts, again—those are the two independent officers of the Legislature. As you will recall, it brought forward the reports that have put us where we are today. The very fact that we’re standing here today, debating a bill where the government is revoking, rescinding, restoring or repairing what they have done to the greenbelt is because of these reports.

So I think the fact that we have been focused on trying to learn from the lessons from the government’s actions, that we have genuinely been trying to protect the respect of this place and to protect democratic norms in the province—we put those forward, and the government, of course, has voted them all down.

It is stunning to me that, perhaps—we know how this place works. Perhaps the government doesn’t want to support anything that His Majesty’s loyal opposition puts forward. I guess I can go that far—that that’s fine. But where is your legislation? Where are you putting forward legislation based on what we’ve experienced in this province, based on the cynicism, the profound lack of trust in government that is the direct result of your actions?

I ask the members on the other side: Is this something that you want to be associated with? Is this what you want your legacy to be?

It is my contention that if the government moved forward with bills that strengthen some of these provisions that help guide us, people would see that as an act of good faith.

We have here the Seven Grandfather Teachings carving in the Legislature. Really, they are a set of guiding principles for how to conduct an ethical and a respectful life. What we were saying with these two bills that we moved forward to strengthen the Integrity Commissioner’s act and to pass the bill, which was the act to end corruption in this province—what we were saying was that we, too, need to be governed by a set of principles, just like we see there.

I’m genuinely disappointed—I almost want to say “sad”—that we have a government that doesn’t want to take action on this. It is really something that you would think that the government would be moving forward on—that we shouldn’t have to be saying that, and people outside this House shouldn’t have to be saying that this government is not acting in their interests or is acting for the benefit of insiders. But if you put something forward—again, Ontarians are a forgiving people, and they would see that this is a government that has learned the error of their ways and is working to earn the trust of Ontarians. That’s what we have to do every single day when we come to this House. We earn their trust to be put here and to be elected here, and it is our job every single day to earn their trust. Whether you’re in opposition, whether you’re in government, whether you’re a cabinet minister, or independent MPPs, that is your job.

Unfortunately, I have to say that turning down those two amendments, and then the debate that we’ve been seeing in the House shows there’s nothing that’s really changed here.

We’re going to discuss Bill 150, which talks about revoking changes that this government’s abuse, essentially, of issuing MZOs—but the irony of the fact that we have had time allocation on a bill that did not go to committee, which was the Ontario Place bill, which in that bill gives a new minister extraordinary powers to issue MZOs. The irony of it is insane.

So we are here to discuss a bill that is reversing bad actions when it comes to good faith on the part of the government issuing MZOs.

We just passed this morning Bill 154, the Ontario Place act that didn’t go to committee, that had limited debate—because the government again used their majority to stifle debate on this—and then, in fact, we would basically call this bill “passing a law to break the law” because, in this bill, it gives extraordinary powers to one minister. I think it needs to be said that it’s giving extraordinary powers to one minister. It’s so strange to me that this is a government that says they don’t like big government, that they work for the people, but they love to concentrate power in the Premier’s office. Now we see power concentrated in the Minister of Infrastructure’s office, and in this bill—really, this is a bill that’s about the government giving itself the power to bypass and even break multiple provincial laws in order to essentially ram through the Ontario Place redevelopment on behalf of a private luxury spa operator, with near total impunity. Again, I talked about all the things that the people of the province are struggling with—top of mind is not a luxury spa that most people won’t ever be able to afford to go to. But this is the bill that gives this government immunity or writes into the bill, basically, a law to break the law. It prohibits lawsuits against the government or remedies with respect to anything done under the act, including—and here’s a list to beat all lists—government misrepresentations, misconduct, misfeasance, bad faith, breach of trust, or breach of fiduciary obligations.

They’re ahead of the game.

Isn’t that crazy? Exactly.

So are you anticipating that you will need to protect yourselves from this? It just goes beyond anything that anybody has seen. We know the government has pushed the envelope with indemnifications like this before. We saw that they gave long-term-care operators indemnities. We saw that they give themselves indemnity when it came to some other bills. But these go so much further than any previous legislation. But what for?

Interjection.

Let me just say that this is not normal. Governments that behave like this are not generally democratic, I would say. This kind of concentration of power, exempting themselves from the rule of law, does not speak to a democratic government. Nobody you would ask would say that. I don’t know how you can think that this speaks to a democratic government. There are governments around the world that would pass laws like this that would be called autocratic. People would never expect to see something like this in the province of Ontario, but here it is.

This is not the only assault, I would say, on our democratic norms in the operating of this House with these two bills—not only the Ontario Place bill where debate was stifled on. There was no committee. All the people who were upset—Ontario Place for All—all the people who were concerned about all the things that you were going to do with Ontario Place were not allowed to come to committee to speak to the government to say, “I don’t agree with this. Why do you have to cut down 850 trees? Why is this necessary? Why are you spending, basically, three quarters of a billion dollars of my money to build a parking garage for a private spa?” They don’t get to ask those questions. I can understand why the government wouldn’t want them to ask those questions because none of the answers are a good look at all for this government.

The idea that you are time-allocating these important bills—both the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act and Bill 150, which is the bill to restore the forced urban boundary expansions of this government—is nothing short of an assault on our democracy. There is no other way of putting it. People that I talk to feel this.

As I said, what the government did when it comes to the greenbelt—I have never seen people mobilize like this on any other issue. And the fact that this government had to walk this back is because of those people, because of their work in this province.

But a normal—

Our normal process is, we have second reading debate and then we send bills to committee. If you really concerned yourself, as I know some of the MPPs opposite do, with our Westminster parliamentary tradition, you would know that committee is a vital component of our democratic functioning. People come to committee to speak directly to their government on bills that impact them and their lives. They come with expert ideas. They come with lived experience. They make suggestions to make bills better. But the government did not allow this. In fact, at committee, the government only allowed one hour to hear from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who promised that he was an entertaining guy when he gets going. The jury is out on that, I have to say.

When I asked this question in the House—don’t get angry now—about why people weren’t allowed to come and speak to this bill, the Premier stood in his place and said the people of Ontario “don’t give two hoots about” the greenbelt. Come on. People do care. They’ve shown that they care because they’ve written to all of you; I know they have. And despite the fact that they weren’t allowed to depute at the committee—which, again, is an important part of our Westminster parliamentary norms—the committee room was packed. There were people in the hallway. Even if they weren’t allowed to speak, they wanted to hear what was being done with the greenbelt.

So I just have to say that, in all the disappointing things that we have seen when it comes to the greenbelt, the fact that people were shut out from this debate is right up there with one of the biggest disappointments that I share with this government, along with some of the other actions that, again, seem to shut out people from this House and from the things that are important to them.

When it comes directly to the bill itself—I have three minutes left—there were a lot of questions that I have and that residents and stakeholders have, and I have here many, many of the submissions from stakeholders who weren’t able to speak at committee.

One of the things that they were really concerned with is that this government restore some, but not all, of the protections to the greenbelt. Let’s be clear: The greenbelt is not better off. There are still protections for the greenbelt that have not been restored with this bill, particularly when it comes to the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. That important area had four layers of protection; only two have been restored. We moved amendments that would have restored those amendments, but the government voted those amendments down. As was said by one of the stakeholders, by only returning two of the four prior Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve protections, the Ford government is not keeping its promise to Pickering residents—that’s from Stop Sprawl Durham. They have quite a few things to say, but they weren’t able to say them at committee.

The other thing that I think is important to note is that when it comes to protecting the greenbelt, people were very concerned that there still exists in this legislation a process for removals. So there still exists, in the legislation, a process for this government to continue to remove, at a future time, lands from the greenbelt. First of all, that is in direct conflict with what the Premier and, in fact, the minister has said—that we won’t be making any changes to the greenbelt in the future. Unfortunately, I feel like that’s a dog-whistle signal to developers—“Hold on. We’re doing this now, but there is provision here to allow things to be removed from the greenbelt.”

I also want to say that many questions remain. Will this government, now, that they have returned this—does this mean that the government does agree with their own housing task force, that they did not need the greenbelt to build housing? Many people are not buying what they consider a cover story about housing, because many experts, including your own task force, said that the greenbelt is not needed to build the housing that we needed.

Unfortunately, we have wasted so much time in the province. We’re so far behind in getting people the housing that we have needed. We have spent a year, a year and a half—even longer. The government has been in power for five and a half years. All the time, effort and angst over this greenbelt grab could have been spent developing strategies and developing good ideas to help people with their housing, because we know people need housing.

In our riding, in Hamilton, we have people sleeping on the street, on cardboard. They need to be housed. We have seniors struggling to keep a roof over their head.

I wish, rather than the government carving up and eyeing the greenbelt, that they had their eye on people in this province—

Come on.

Thank you. Further debate?